-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter crazyhomo
- Start date
- Status
eviltama
Mentally Deranged Maniac
--------
Originally posted by neo_o
Oh and really does depend on the situation doesn't it? eg : two homosexuals who both have catholic parents... guess who your hurting there.
-------
Yah the catholic parents would be hurting so bad they might even start their kids on shock therapy i mean its been known to happen.
You change religion, could that be classed as hurting your family? your church?
You die, you hurt alot of people.
You get into an accident, you hurt people.
You fail a class, this could hurt your parents and your teachers. (if ur in uni it'd sure as hell hurt your wallet)
Heterosexuals being in love can hurt people too.
Heterosexuals not in love (divorced) hurt ALOT more people.
It all depends on the kind of hurt you're talking about. Everyone gets hurt and can be hurt by anything.
------
You could go on with hypotheticals forever etc...
-------
And for just as many as there are on one side, there would be jsut as many on the other.
Originally posted by neo_o
Oh and really does depend on the situation doesn't it? eg : two homosexuals who both have catholic parents... guess who your hurting there.
-------
Yah the catholic parents would be hurting so bad they might even start their kids on shock therapy i mean its been known to happen.
You change religion, could that be classed as hurting your family? your church?
You die, you hurt alot of people.
You get into an accident, you hurt people.
You fail a class, this could hurt your parents and your teachers. (if ur in uni it'd sure as hell hurt your wallet)
Heterosexuals being in love can hurt people too.
Heterosexuals not in love (divorced) hurt ALOT more people.
It all depends on the kind of hurt you're talking about. Everyone gets hurt and can be hurt by anything.
------
You could go on with hypotheticals forever etc...
-------
And for just as many as there are on one side, there would be jsut as many on the other.
eviltama
Mentally Deranged Maniac
------
Originally posted by neo_o
That's not what they want (apparently). Civil unions (which I support fully btw) just aren't good enough for them. They want the full recognition of being a married couple - not just the legal rights.
------
Compare a civil union to marriage. Compare the legal and social benefits. How many heterosexuals do you know that have a civil union relationship? I know none. Why? Because the ones i know that are willing to go the distance get married. There is a stigma to civil unions, its not seen as comparable to marriage its marriages 2nd rate, 2nd hand derro cousin. Why should homosexuals only be allowed to have a civil union? I thought australia got rid of the status mentality, why should marriages be put on such a high pedastal that only heterosexuals can get to? Its giving out the impression that heterosexuals are the high society amoungst us, and that homosexuals are like menial commoners and don't deserves the same rights and recognition of their relationships.
It's not only a battle for the right to marry, but also the right to be seen as married. Even a de facto couple would be seen as more responsible/commited/respectable than a couple (regardless of sexuality) that undertook a civil union. Homosexuals are discriminated against enough and are fighting against being seen as 2nd rate citizens, 2nd rate humans.... the issue is as much about this as it is about everything else.
------
It's all about gay rights, they just want it so they can have it. In Norway for example where gay marriage has been legalised, less then 1% of unions are same-sex.
------
That makes homosexuals sound greedy. They aren't, they just want the same rights as is afforded to everyone else. Heteros can go get married and come back and have their marriage recognised. Homosexuals sure they can hop a plane to norway or america and get married, but they can't come back here and have their marriage seen as legal or even seen as a real marriage despite its validity and their validity as a married couple.
Everyone keeps saying homosexuals are a minority, so why say 'less than 1%' as if it were disappointing. As if you expected every homosexual in that country to go running to get married. Homosexuals hold marriage as high in esteem as everyone else, regardless of sexual orientation its a serious matter.. not something to rush into.
Originally posted by neo_o
That's not what they want (apparently). Civil unions (which I support fully btw) just aren't good enough for them. They want the full recognition of being a married couple - not just the legal rights.
------
Compare a civil union to marriage. Compare the legal and social benefits. How many heterosexuals do you know that have a civil union relationship? I know none. Why? Because the ones i know that are willing to go the distance get married. There is a stigma to civil unions, its not seen as comparable to marriage its marriages 2nd rate, 2nd hand derro cousin. Why should homosexuals only be allowed to have a civil union? I thought australia got rid of the status mentality, why should marriages be put on such a high pedastal that only heterosexuals can get to? Its giving out the impression that heterosexuals are the high society amoungst us, and that homosexuals are like menial commoners and don't deserves the same rights and recognition of their relationships.
It's not only a battle for the right to marry, but also the right to be seen as married. Even a de facto couple would be seen as more responsible/commited/respectable than a couple (regardless of sexuality) that undertook a civil union. Homosexuals are discriminated against enough and are fighting against being seen as 2nd rate citizens, 2nd rate humans.... the issue is as much about this as it is about everything else.
------
It's all about gay rights, they just want it so they can have it. In Norway for example where gay marriage has been legalised, less then 1% of unions are same-sex.
------
That makes homosexuals sound greedy. They aren't, they just want the same rights as is afforded to everyone else. Heteros can go get married and come back and have their marriage recognised. Homosexuals sure they can hop a plane to norway or america and get married, but they can't come back here and have their marriage seen as legal or even seen as a real marriage despite its validity and their validity as a married couple.
Everyone keeps saying homosexuals are a minority, so why say 'less than 1%' as if it were disappointing. As if you expected every homosexual in that country to go running to get married. Homosexuals hold marriage as high in esteem as everyone else, regardless of sexual orientation its a serious matter.. not something to rush into.
tWiStEdD
deity of ultimate reason
We are gettting lost in a sea of rheotoric and hopeless analogies.
FACTS:
a) Homosexuals want to be able to get marriage.
b) Marriage is the union of man and a woman, voluntarily entered into, to the exclusion of all others and for life.
c) There are cultural and traditional reasons for marriage being what it is.
d) Homosexuals are an extreme minority who chose to sleep with members of the same sex and want legal recognition for it.
e) The law is supposed to change with respect to changing social morals and values.
FICTION:
a) There is majority support for gay marriages.
b) Gays need to get married.
c) Gays recieve no recognition whatsoever and are a poorly treated, repressed group.
Okay fellas, for such a tiny minority you have to conceed that they have it pretty good!
- Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999 (Amended De Facto Relationships Act 1984 and renamed it): recognised gay couples as a defacto relationship
- Superannuation Industry (Same Sex Partners) Act 2000: Gave gays right to their partner's superannuation upon death.
These are two examples of legislation which has given them additional rights. Realistically, they are 'different'... say I dyed my hair a vibrant green colour and it made me stand out as 'different'... i deserve no new rights on account of my choice of hair colour. I do not deserve to enter a 'red-heads only' club on acccount of the fact that my base hair colour is red but i dyed it green. Its valid to say that much isnt it? It would be fair that I either remove the dye or wait for the dye to grow out and I try to enter the club when its all gone. THAT is fair on everyone else, just as it is fair on everyone else that gays form their own 'green-hair only club' and have fun over there.
I propose that they are given limited rights, more than defactos but less than married couples. Yes, it is the word marriage that gets me shitty... but not it alone. Its everything the word stands for. We all know it stands for alot, and it is based on heterosexual relationships.
I retire from this debate now. I will read up on it though... to ensure it is going well, and i will respond to anyone to replies directly to this post. I dont think I am unreasonable, I just think a lot more has to change before we allow such changes to take place.
FACTS:
a) Homosexuals want to be able to get marriage.
b) Marriage is the union of man and a woman, voluntarily entered into, to the exclusion of all others and for life.
c) There are cultural and traditional reasons for marriage being what it is.
d) Homosexuals are an extreme minority who chose to sleep with members of the same sex and want legal recognition for it.
e) The law is supposed to change with respect to changing social morals and values.
FICTION:
a) There is majority support for gay marriages.
b) Gays need to get married.
c) Gays recieve no recognition whatsoever and are a poorly treated, repressed group.
Okay fellas, for such a tiny minority you have to conceed that they have it pretty good!
- Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999 (Amended De Facto Relationships Act 1984 and renamed it): recognised gay couples as a defacto relationship
- Superannuation Industry (Same Sex Partners) Act 2000: Gave gays right to their partner's superannuation upon death.
These are two examples of legislation which has given them additional rights. Realistically, they are 'different'... say I dyed my hair a vibrant green colour and it made me stand out as 'different'... i deserve no new rights on account of my choice of hair colour. I do not deserve to enter a 'red-heads only' club on acccount of the fact that my base hair colour is red but i dyed it green. Its valid to say that much isnt it? It would be fair that I either remove the dye or wait for the dye to grow out and I try to enter the club when its all gone. THAT is fair on everyone else, just as it is fair on everyone else that gays form their own 'green-hair only club' and have fun over there.
I propose that they are given limited rights, more than defactos but less than married couples. Yes, it is the word marriage that gets me shitty... but not it alone. Its everything the word stands for. We all know it stands for alot, and it is based on heterosexual relationships.
I retire from this debate now. I will read up on it though... to ensure it is going well, and i will respond to anyone to replies directly to this post. I dont think I am unreasonable, I just think a lot more has to change before we allow such changes to take place.
Ribbon
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 455
I know this is off topic but I feel the need to point out to you that attack on aborigional people is unjustified. The people next door to you arn't bad people because they are aborigional, they are bad people because they are bad people. The benifits they are getting are the **exact** same benifits offered to everybody, and anyone, regardless of race can wrought the system in the exact same way. They arn't able to wrought the system simply because they are aborigional. They are able to wrought the system because the system is able to be wroughted (I don't even know if that a word, but you get my drift)
Josie
Everything's perfect!
Why not, as a list of facts, actually have facts?
IE
1) Gays want marriage
2) Howard and the church wants it to be between man and woman only
As for your fiction, please show me your in depth professional analysis of a nation-wide poll showing that a vast majority of Australians do not support Gay Marriage. Just because you and your friends and your dog don't like the idea, doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.
Whether it is marriage or not, homosexual couples should get the EXACT SAME legal rights and to the same extent as heterosexual couples. What does it matter to you that two guys get married? Does it personally offend you that they have something that you will never have or want?
Why should they get less rights? They made a choice to sleep with someone of the same sex. Bully for them. Are you saying they are any less human or Australian?
IE
1) Gays want marriage
2) Howard and the church wants it to be between man and woman only
As for your fiction, please show me your in depth professional analysis of a nation-wide poll showing that a vast majority of Australians do not support Gay Marriage. Just because you and your friends and your dog don't like the idea, doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.
Whether it is marriage or not, homosexual couples should get the EXACT SAME legal rights and to the same extent as heterosexual couples. What does it matter to you that two guys get married? Does it personally offend you that they have something that you will never have or want?
Why should they get less rights? They made a choice to sleep with someone of the same sex. Bully for them. Are you saying they are any less human or Australian?
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Err, wrong. The legal institution of marriage gives the other partner rights. These rights stem from what happens if the other partner dies to what happens on divorce. That's why marriage is necessary.
If the other partner dies and there's no legal recognition of their love then guess who the estate of the other partner goes to if they're intestate (without a will) - their parents! Not their partner! Wow!
On divorce. Marriage is meant to be a "for life" committment. Now, on divorce, this committment is recognised by the law which makes sure that the financially independent partner provides for the non-financially independent one. They must honour their committment of "for life".
Here's the kicker though, marriage's most important function is the protection and maintenance of children - society's most important asset. Now on divorce, both parents (under the Family Law Reform Act 1995) must maintain any children of the relationship and have "equal parental responsibility. Note this - children.
Also, marriage is traditionally - and still, the "union of a man and a woman" (Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee 1866).
Marriage is an important institution because it is a legal recognition of a couple's love for each other under the law and it protects both parties in the marriage in the event of divorce or death and it protects children of the marriage as well. Procreation, of course, is one of the primary functions of human beings!
There is another reason for marriage (this is more a Marxist point of view) and this is economic. Marriage protects the welfare system and the economy. If one marriage makes sure that two adults and two children are not being provided for by the government but rather they are being provided for by either of the adults then society is better off. This means that during and after marriage the other party and the children are provided for by at least one adult. Now, from an economic point of view, allowing homosexual marriage makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Marriage is a vital institution because of the way our society is structured. You can look at it's importance from many points of view but the most vital are that of a legal recognition of love and the economic view.
This is where the conflict begins, however, because the idea of "love" is subjective - it's morals and ethics. The economic one is reasonably more objective. Those who support the more subjective ideals ingrained throughout history and through tradition behind marriage will clearly, as seen in this thread, vehemently oppose the union of homosexual couples at least under the heading of "marriage". Then there are those who believe that the history and tradition behind the term marriage should be totally forgotten and that the underlying foundations of the term marriage should be the most prevalent. You may also have those who can only gauge the term through economic terms as I described above.
What if you get rid of the term "marriage" though and replace it with "civil union". Many people's ideas do change. Personally, the term "marriage" should be totally abolished and instead, "civil unions" should be instituted for all. Then again, I'm an athiest
That's why marriage (or similar) is important and necessary.
crazyhomo
under pressure
you are hopeless. you make up statements about fact and fiction, both having obvious flaws.
ok, you're 'facts'
a) yes, all homosexuals want to get married, just like all heterosexuals want to get married. sweeping generalisation number 1
b) this is true for australia. it's not true for all countries, nor will it neccessarily continue to be true for australia. sweeping generalisation number 2
c) oh, you mean the 'fact' that isn't even true? yeah, i bet there are tons of reasons for it not existing
d) 'extreme minority'? homosexuals make up about 10% of the population. that's about the same percentage that make up the swing vote that politicians specifically target. and you just don't learn do you? THERE IS NO CONSLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT SAYS HOMOSEXUALS HAVE A CHOICE IN THEIR SEXUALITY. it is currently believed that most homosexuals are that way because of a combination of their environment, and a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. and even that view can be disputed. that makes sweeping generalisation number 3
e) it's supposed to change? does that mean that it sometimes changes? maybe sometimes it changes because lobbyists get their way? sweeping generalisation number 4
and you're 'fictions':
a) where did you pull this from? i'm guessing that, like most of you're other arguments, you just pulled this out of your arse and expect everyone to treat it a gospel. sweeping generalisation number 5
b) like the same way that heterosexuals need to get married? i'm not going to even call this a sweeping generalisation, because i have no fucking idea what your point is or how you are trying to say it
c) wake up to reality. gays are poorly treated. to most people, if you are gay you are treated as nothing more than a novelty. sweeping generalisation number 6
how are those 'additional rights'? those are merely lesser rights than those already given to heterosexual couples. and your example is a complete bunch of crap. how about if you decided to dye your hair red and found out that only people with green hair are allowed to get married. because, you know, it's tradition that only green-haired people can get married
and now you propose that they should be treated as lesser than heterosexuals in the eyes of the law?
eviltama
Mentally Deranged Maniac
------
Originally posted by tWiStEdD
We are gettting lost in a sea of rheotoric and hopeless analogies.
-------
Just like the example you used down the bottom there!
------
FACTS:
a) Homosexuals want to be able to get marriage.
b) Marriage is the union of man and a woman, voluntarily entered into, to the exclusion of all others and for life.
c) There are cultural and traditional reasons for marriage being what it is.
d) Homosexuals are an extreme minority who chose to sleep with members of the same sex and want legal recognition for it.
e) The law is supposed to change with respect to changing social morals and values.
-------
a) We want to be able to go before a JOP or a minister (in a consenting church) and say our 'i do's' and have it recognised as legally binding marriage.. just like heterosexuals. So yes thats a fact.
b) That is a legal fact yes.
c) Of course, but those reasons are only reasons for people who follow that particular culture or set of traditions. So marriage is defined as such or regarded as such for them, that doesn't that everyone else should have to suffer under their cultures or traditions.
Fact - Marriage means a different thing to everyone but is generally regarded as the institution under which 2 people who love each other join together in an everlasting commitment to each other and to any family (kids etc) they may have. (I made it genderless because that way the assumption of sexes comes down to each different person.)
d)Homosexuals are NOT an extreme minority. Religious groups that are small aren't labelled 'extreme' minorities, so why use that term with homosexuals.
Fact- Homosexuals are a minority group, depending on your survey that group can range from 17% -10% of the population. Which is a larger slice of the population than some religions which are not seen as minorities.
Heterosexuals sleep with members of the opposite sex and they get legal recognition for it. Even if they are under age. Heterosexuals also choose to do so, some heterosexuals also engage in homosexual acts! We don't want recognition for sleeping with members of the same sex, we want the same recognition heterosexuals get for commiting to their partner. Being allowed to have the right to marry and have their marriage recognised under Australian law.
e) Yes.
------
FICTION:
a) There is majority support for gay marriages.
b) Gays need to get married.
c) Gays recieve no recognition whatsoever and are a poorly treated, repressed group.
------
a) There is a majority support for gay marriages. That is fact, not fiction.
b) Gays need to be married as much as Heterosexuals. They also deserve to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Fact, not fiction.
c) Stereotype, not fiction. Just like the flamboyant fag stereotype. There is some truth in the stereotype tho otherwise there wouldn't be a stereotype.
------
Okay fellas, for such a tiny minority you have to conceed that they have it pretty good!
- Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999 (Amended De Facto Relationships Act 1984 and renamed it): recognised gay couples as a defacto relationship
- Superannuation Industry (Same Sex Partners) Act 2000: Gave gays right to their partner's superannuation upon death.
-------
Pretty good? In contrast to what we had yes. in contrast to what you (heteros) have no. And i doubt we will ever get that level of recognition.
------
These are two examples of legislation which has given them additional rights.
-------
Not additional. Additional implies that its an extra right for just being homosexual. It's not. It also implies that heterosexual is the standard and since we are homosexual we get those rights as well as the 'additional' which we don't. The rights given to heterosexuals are the 'stock standard' rights that 'everyone' has.. but everyone doesn't have them... only heterosexuals.. homosexuals don't get them... and that is why this is an issue.
-----
Realistically, they are 'different'... say I dyed my hair a vibrant green colour and it made me stand out as 'different'... i deserve no new rights on account of my choice of hair colour. I do not deserve to enter a 'red-heads only' club on acccount of the fact that my base hair colour is red but i dyed it green. Its valid to say that much isnt it?
-----
Sure it'd be valid if it was a decent example. Your trying to imply homosexuals can change their sexuality like their hair colour... boy-o if it was only that easy!
"They are 'different'", so are bisexuals, transexuals, pansexuals and any other sexual deviance you can think of... i don't see them being excluded (with the exception of transexuals) from the predominantly heterosexual mould.
------
It would be fair that I either remove the dye or wait for the dye to grow out and I try to enter the club when its all gone. THAT is fair on everyone else, just as it is fair on everyone else that gays form their own 'green-hair only club' and have fun over there.
------
Segregation AGAIN?! Shame on you. Once again with the bs. Homosexuality doesnt come and go... its not a phase, you don't grow out of it. And its not something so obvious that we could go around segregating everyone because of. I thought everyone had gotten over the whole segregation ideal. White Australia! Down with Blacks! Different = Bad! <--- All of it was discriminatory and a load of fkn bullshit. Just like segregating homosexuals and our 'green-hair only club'... we don't segregate ourselves, and we don't harm you or stop you from joining our 'club' and its fun activities... There are more heteros at the mardi gras than there are gays so go figure.
------
I propose that they are given limited rights, more than defactos but less than married couples. Yes, it is the word marriage that gets me shitty... but not it alone. Its everything the word stands for. We all know it stands for alot, and it is based on heterosexual relationships.
------
Once more with the 2nd rate citizens routine! Farking hell... Marriage has been based on heterosexual relationships.. and is it no wonder! Because homosexual marriages were frowned upon and not allowed!
Society has changed, homosexuality is an acknowledged practise. It's no longer thought of as a disease or mental disorder. Society is open to practising homosexuals, its open to celebrating homosexuality (mardi gras and gay pride days, the rainbow flag etc) Homosexuality isn't in the cloest anymore, and more people are coming forward and admitting that they are homosexual where in the past they would have denied it. This is society.. this is the evolution of culture and tradition.
[“It demeans the institution. The institution of marriage is trivialised by same-sex marriage,” Hyde replied. As Mohr comments:
“The institution of marriage has now become completely detached from any actual marriage. It is only the concept or ideal of marriage – marriage wholly in the abstract – that concerns Hyde. Here we have left the realm of traditional social policy and entered the realm of cultural symbols.” http://www.gayaustralia.com.au/r/Ne...ets_Ugly/sid.206/mode.thread/order.0/thold.0/
]
-----
I retire from this debate now. I will read up on it though... to ensure it is going well, and i will respond to anyone to replies directly to this post. I dont think I am unreasonable, I just think a lot more has to change before we allow such changes to take place.
------
Unresonable... less than most i'd say. And i agree alot more has to change for anything to take place... but i don't think banning gay marriage is the way to go. Marriage is already defined as heterosexual, leave it the way it is, it doesnt need anything amended to it.
A step in the right direction would be recognising gay marriages that occur overseas, even if not recognised as 'marriages' atleast give them some sort of recognition.
Originally posted by tWiStEdD
We are gettting lost in a sea of rheotoric and hopeless analogies.
-------
Just like the example you used down the bottom there!
------
FACTS:
a) Homosexuals want to be able to get marriage.
b) Marriage is the union of man and a woman, voluntarily entered into, to the exclusion of all others and for life.
c) There are cultural and traditional reasons for marriage being what it is.
d) Homosexuals are an extreme minority who chose to sleep with members of the same sex and want legal recognition for it.
e) The law is supposed to change with respect to changing social morals and values.
-------
a) We want to be able to go before a JOP or a minister (in a consenting church) and say our 'i do's' and have it recognised as legally binding marriage.. just like heterosexuals. So yes thats a fact.
b) That is a legal fact yes.
c) Of course, but those reasons are only reasons for people who follow that particular culture or set of traditions. So marriage is defined as such or regarded as such for them, that doesn't that everyone else should have to suffer under their cultures or traditions.
Fact - Marriage means a different thing to everyone but is generally regarded as the institution under which 2 people who love each other join together in an everlasting commitment to each other and to any family (kids etc) they may have. (I made it genderless because that way the assumption of sexes comes down to each different person.)
d)Homosexuals are NOT an extreme minority. Religious groups that are small aren't labelled 'extreme' minorities, so why use that term with homosexuals.
Fact- Homosexuals are a minority group, depending on your survey that group can range from 17% -10% of the population. Which is a larger slice of the population than some religions which are not seen as minorities.
Heterosexuals sleep with members of the opposite sex and they get legal recognition for it. Even if they are under age. Heterosexuals also choose to do so, some heterosexuals also engage in homosexual acts! We don't want recognition for sleeping with members of the same sex, we want the same recognition heterosexuals get for commiting to their partner. Being allowed to have the right to marry and have their marriage recognised under Australian law.
e) Yes.
------
FICTION:
a) There is majority support for gay marriages.
b) Gays need to get married.
c) Gays recieve no recognition whatsoever and are a poorly treated, repressed group.
------
a) There is a majority support for gay marriages. That is fact, not fiction.
b) Gays need to be married as much as Heterosexuals. They also deserve to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Fact, not fiction.
c) Stereotype, not fiction. Just like the flamboyant fag stereotype. There is some truth in the stereotype tho otherwise there wouldn't be a stereotype.
------
Okay fellas, for such a tiny minority you have to conceed that they have it pretty good!
- Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999 (Amended De Facto Relationships Act 1984 and renamed it): recognised gay couples as a defacto relationship
- Superannuation Industry (Same Sex Partners) Act 2000: Gave gays right to their partner's superannuation upon death.
-------
Pretty good? In contrast to what we had yes. in contrast to what you (heteros) have no. And i doubt we will ever get that level of recognition.
------
These are two examples of legislation which has given them additional rights.
-------
Not additional. Additional implies that its an extra right for just being homosexual. It's not. It also implies that heterosexual is the standard and since we are homosexual we get those rights as well as the 'additional' which we don't. The rights given to heterosexuals are the 'stock standard' rights that 'everyone' has.. but everyone doesn't have them... only heterosexuals.. homosexuals don't get them... and that is why this is an issue.
-----
Realistically, they are 'different'... say I dyed my hair a vibrant green colour and it made me stand out as 'different'... i deserve no new rights on account of my choice of hair colour. I do not deserve to enter a 'red-heads only' club on acccount of the fact that my base hair colour is red but i dyed it green. Its valid to say that much isnt it?
-----
Sure it'd be valid if it was a decent example. Your trying to imply homosexuals can change their sexuality like their hair colour... boy-o if it was only that easy!
"They are 'different'", so are bisexuals, transexuals, pansexuals and any other sexual deviance you can think of... i don't see them being excluded (with the exception of transexuals) from the predominantly heterosexual mould.
------
It would be fair that I either remove the dye or wait for the dye to grow out and I try to enter the club when its all gone. THAT is fair on everyone else, just as it is fair on everyone else that gays form their own 'green-hair only club' and have fun over there.
------
Segregation AGAIN?! Shame on you. Once again with the bs. Homosexuality doesnt come and go... its not a phase, you don't grow out of it. And its not something so obvious that we could go around segregating everyone because of. I thought everyone had gotten over the whole segregation ideal. White Australia! Down with Blacks! Different = Bad! <--- All of it was discriminatory and a load of fkn bullshit. Just like segregating homosexuals and our 'green-hair only club'... we don't segregate ourselves, and we don't harm you or stop you from joining our 'club' and its fun activities... There are more heteros at the mardi gras than there are gays so go figure.
------
I propose that they are given limited rights, more than defactos but less than married couples. Yes, it is the word marriage that gets me shitty... but not it alone. Its everything the word stands for. We all know it stands for alot, and it is based on heterosexual relationships.
------
Once more with the 2nd rate citizens routine! Farking hell... Marriage has been based on heterosexual relationships.. and is it no wonder! Because homosexual marriages were frowned upon and not allowed!
Society has changed, homosexuality is an acknowledged practise. It's no longer thought of as a disease or mental disorder. Society is open to practising homosexuals, its open to celebrating homosexuality (mardi gras and gay pride days, the rainbow flag etc) Homosexuality isn't in the cloest anymore, and more people are coming forward and admitting that they are homosexual where in the past they would have denied it. This is society.. this is the evolution of culture and tradition.
[“It demeans the institution. The institution of marriage is trivialised by same-sex marriage,” Hyde replied. As Mohr comments:
“The institution of marriage has now become completely detached from any actual marriage. It is only the concept or ideal of marriage – marriage wholly in the abstract – that concerns Hyde. Here we have left the realm of traditional social policy and entered the realm of cultural symbols.” http://www.gayaustralia.com.au/r/Ne...ets_Ugly/sid.206/mode.thread/order.0/thold.0/
]
-----
I retire from this debate now. I will read up on it though... to ensure it is going well, and i will respond to anyone to replies directly to this post. I dont think I am unreasonable, I just think a lot more has to change before we allow such changes to take place.
------
Unresonable... less than most i'd say. And i agree alot more has to change for anything to take place... but i don't think banning gay marriage is the way to go. Marriage is already defined as heterosexual, leave it the way it is, it doesnt need anything amended to it.
A step in the right direction would be recognising gay marriages that occur overseas, even if not recognised as 'marriages' atleast give them some sort of recognition.
eviltama
Mentally Deranged Maniac
------
Originally posted by Ribbon
I know this is off topic but I feel the need to point out to you that attack on aborigional people is unjustified.
------
I'm not attacking them, just pointing out the situation.
-----
The people next door to you arn't bad people because they are aborigional, they are bad people because they are bad people.
------
I don't even think they are 'bad people' per se. They break laws etc.. rort the system... but are generally nice people and i get on with them very well.
-----
The benifits they are getting are the **exact** same benifits offered to everybody, and anyone, regardless of race can wrought the system in the exact same way. They arn't able to wrought the system simply because they are aborigional.
-------
Sure anyone can rort the system, it just means they get more system to rort because they are aboriginal and are considered disadvantaged.
--------
They are able to wrought the system because the system is able to be wroughted (I don't even know if that a word, but you get my drift)
--------
Sure its as much the system as it is them. But meh they get the extra rights and pensions and the help... and they just waste it, and use it to the extreme. I spose it seems worse because they do get the extras but yet continually try to seek more and do less (work wise etc)
Originally posted by Ribbon
I know this is off topic but I feel the need to point out to you that attack on aborigional people is unjustified.
------
I'm not attacking them, just pointing out the situation.
-----
The people next door to you arn't bad people because they are aborigional, they are bad people because they are bad people.
------
I don't even think they are 'bad people' per se. They break laws etc.. rort the system... but are generally nice people and i get on with them very well.
-----
The benifits they are getting are the **exact** same benifits offered to everybody, and anyone, regardless of race can wrought the system in the exact same way. They arn't able to wrought the system simply because they are aborigional.
-------
Sure anyone can rort the system, it just means they get more system to rort because they are aboriginal and are considered disadvantaged.
--------
They are able to wrought the system because the system is able to be wroughted (I don't even know if that a word, but you get my drift)
--------
Sure its as much the system as it is them. But meh they get the extra rights and pensions and the help... and they just waste it, and use it to the extreme. I spose it seems worse because they do get the extras but yet continually try to seek more and do less (work wise etc)
lengstar
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,208
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
this debate really all comes down to personal prejudices against certain groups in 'our' community.
please again explain to me how allowing homosexual marriages affects you. until you come up with a logical, valid reason don't bother debating the issue again, otherwise you can call yourself fag hater and destroy all remaining creditability for your opinion on homosexual marriages.
please again explain to me how allowing homosexual marriages affects you. until you come up with a logical, valid reason don't bother debating the issue again, otherwise you can call yourself fag hater and destroy all remaining creditability for your opinion on homosexual marriages.
Hmm, if you like, I probably won't bother on such a useless topic. Do you really think that many people would think it's not hurting someone? Everything's open to debate, mate, but some things aren't worth it... such as your ridiculous example.
Look son, that's where I pointed out inequality.... you didn't address it and therefore you haven't really explained why there isn't inequality. If some people are allowed to marry the person they love and others aren't, surely that's inequality.
Yeah you could, and like crazyhomo pointed out, your hypothetical could be exactly the same from a hetero point of view if the parents didn't approve or if the parents were of a different religion to the person marrying their child.
Another classic example from neo_o... again, proving... not a lot
K
katie_tully
Guest
The ban on gay marriages quote "is discriminating in favour of an institution which is basic to the cohesion of our society" John Howard.
It is heartening to see bipartisan support for this move, which will strengthen and reaffirm the unique status of marriage as it has been traditionally understood by our society," Bishop Eugene Hurley
"I think it's very similar to Tampa in that John Howard is creating a crisis where one doesn't exist and is using homophobia as his tool." Somali Cerise
Soon as a law is passed that affects A MINORITY of people, they scream discrimination. It's not about discriminating against homosexual couples. Don't use homophobia as a basis for argument.
I'm not homophobic, I'm all for gay couples as the next person. I'm not for gay marriages because that is not what marriage is.
You're all using the changing constitution towards Aboriginals as an example, but if you want to do that we can sit here all day and list examples of where the law is changed for a certain group.
1. Women; Could not vote until 1902.
2. Aboriginals; 1967
It's not about changing laws to fit a certain group, Men have been discriminatory against everybody but their anglosaxon selves since day dot. Those two are examples of human rights. It is not a human right for a gay couple to be unionised by an act which has always been for a man and a woman.
ABORIGINALS GETTING TO VOTE is a HUMAN RIGHT.
It may state on the Human Right's website that you cannot discriminate against a certain sex or a sexual preference...but for one second can people stop and see that maybe this isn't an attack on the gay culture, but more a way to try and keep heterosexual culture in place?
Stop and think about the heterosexual culture. The world is slowly becoming more and more open, especially to the gay community. Gays are widely accepted, so why can't you understand that there are some things we have to preserve? If nothing else, marriage should be it.
It is heartening to see bipartisan support for this move, which will strengthen and reaffirm the unique status of marriage as it has been traditionally understood by our society," Bishop Eugene Hurley
"I think it's very similar to Tampa in that John Howard is creating a crisis where one doesn't exist and is using homophobia as his tool." Somali Cerise
Soon as a law is passed that affects A MINORITY of people, they scream discrimination. It's not about discriminating against homosexual couples. Don't use homophobia as a basis for argument.
I'm not homophobic, I'm all for gay couples as the next person. I'm not for gay marriages because that is not what marriage is.
You're all using the changing constitution towards Aboriginals as an example, but if you want to do that we can sit here all day and list examples of where the law is changed for a certain group.
1. Women; Could not vote until 1902.
2. Aboriginals; 1967
It's not about changing laws to fit a certain group, Men have been discriminatory against everybody but their anglosaxon selves since day dot. Those two are examples of human rights. It is not a human right for a gay couple to be unionised by an act which has always been for a man and a woman.
ABORIGINALS GETTING TO VOTE is a HUMAN RIGHT.
It may state on the Human Right's website that you cannot discriminate against a certain sex or a sexual preference...but for one second can people stop and see that maybe this isn't an attack on the gay culture, but more a way to try and keep heterosexual culture in place?
Stop and think about the heterosexual culture. The world is slowly becoming more and more open, especially to the gay community. Gays are widely accepted, so why can't you understand that there are some things we have to preserve? If nothing else, marriage should be it.
Oh darling you are lost. "Why can't you understand that there are some things we have to preserve?"... Well I see it as an injustice equal to aboriginals and women not being allowed to vote. I see it as something that, if preserved, is a catastrophic decision.
"Those two are examples of human rights. It is not a human right for a gay couple to be unionised by an act which has always been for a man and a woman."
Those two, before the laws were changed, were NOT seen as human rights. It wasn't until we realised that it was unjust that the laws were changed. Similarly, your argument 'it is not a human right for a gay couple to be unionised by an act which as always been a man and a woman' is ridiculous. It was not a human right for an aboriginal to vote in a system which had always been ONLY europeans voting. But then we realised that we were being stupid and made it a right.
In the same way, it SHOULD be a human right for all those to marry anyone they like.
And stop seperating gay culture and heterosexual culture. We're all human beings and we all deserve equality. The Taliban culture was to stone to death anyone that didn't obey those strict laws. The US thought it was wrong and went in and removed the Taliban. It had nothign to do with Taliban culture and US culture, it had to do with us all being humans and the actions taken being unjust.
You talk of preserving things like marriage as if gay people are invading and we're losing all trace of who we are. Why do we need to preserve things from gay people? Why do we need to keep them away? How does it affect you when a gay couple gets married? Does it lower the status of marriage? I can't believe that it does, because to say it does would be an attack against homosexuality.
K
katie_tully
Guest
"While it is true to say that Sodom was not destroyed merely because some of its citizens practiced homosexuality, it is false to say that Sodom was destroyed merely because its inhabitants were inhospitable and proud. The city was destroyed because its citizens were exceedingly sinful"
So while the Church is saying homosexuality is a sin, it isn't really??
But then there's this..
In response, it should be noted that Jesus’ silence on the issue is no argument that He approved of homosexuality. He never specifically addressed the issues of pedophilia, bestiality, or any number of other sexual perversions. Does this mean that Jesus approved of whatever He did not condemn by name? Are we to think that as long as people feel love, it doesn’t matter what they do? To ask is to answer. In fact, the Lord Jesus always spoke of sexual relations in heterosexual terms. What Jesus did say carries more weight than our views of what He did not say.
So...is it wrong, or is it right in the eyes of the Church? I'm on the fence now, I can't decide...I guess if there are varying degrees of deciphering the bible, there are going to be varying opinions.
So while the Church is saying homosexuality is a sin, it isn't really??
But then there's this..
In response, it should be noted that Jesus’ silence on the issue is no argument that He approved of homosexuality. He never specifically addressed the issues of pedophilia, bestiality, or any number of other sexual perversions. Does this mean that Jesus approved of whatever He did not condemn by name? Are we to think that as long as people feel love, it doesn’t matter what they do? To ask is to answer. In fact, the Lord Jesus always spoke of sexual relations in heterosexual terms. What Jesus did say carries more weight than our views of what He did not say.
So...is it wrong, or is it right in the eyes of the Church? I'm on the fence now, I can't decide...I guess if there are varying degrees of deciphering the bible, there are going to be varying opinions.
It depends what Church you go to. The Uniting Church says it's okay. The Catholic says it's not. I'm not sure about Anglican but I think it says no too.
In situations like these it's important to remember that marriage is not simply a religious institution anymore.
Ribbon
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 455
Once again, sorry for keeping this offtopic but in regards to the benifits you mentioned (pension, rent assistance) aborigional people to not get any more $$ than anyone else (the only difference is youth allowence is called abstudy ect... the actual $$ amounts don't vary)... I agree alot of people waste it and buy ciggies/alcohol/drugs/whatever but that its not exclusively aborigionals on the pension that waste it, and seek more so they can do less...
Yeah I agree. To say it's just Aboriginals is completely wrong, and to say Aboriginals are the people that do it most would be wrong as well. I was present when police were enquiring about someone who'd just held up the local supermarket (my suburb has heaps of housing commission [which is not bad!] and is also home to many intellectually disabled people taken from institutes and integrated into society)... a lot of these people get welfare payouts and the cops and supermarket owner were saying how they all blow it on cigarettes and alcohol... the aboriginal makeup of this suburb is EXTREMELY low.
- Status